mlb_game_changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the return shape ({totalItems, dates:[{games:[{gamePk, gameDate}]}]}) and states 'Auth: none needed,' adding context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint annotations, and the polling behavior is explicitly stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise: one purpose sentence, a return shape, and an auth note. All content is necessary, front-loaded, and free of filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters and a return shape provided in the description. The only minor gaps are that it doesn't define what counts as a 'change' or mention any pagination/limits, but these are not essential for a minimal polling helper given the open-world hint and lack of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions and an example timestamp, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating the 'since a timestamp' concept, so the schema carries the semantic burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Games changed since a timestamp — a polling helper to detect updated games.' It uses specific verbs (poll, detect) and a specific resource (games changed since timestamp), and the polling helper framing distinguishes it from other MLB tools like schedule or score endpoints.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly labels it as a 'polling helper to detect updated games,' providing clear context for when to use it (repeated checks for game updates). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer mlb_schedule or mlb_game_changes over related endpoints, but the use case is well implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.